In 1910, English journalist Norman Angell famously argued in "The Great Illusion" that war had become obsolete in an economically interdependent world. Yet the blood-soaked history of the 20th century proved otherwise: neither reason, nor economic logic, nor even the catastrophic potential of modern weapons has ever deterred war. Every major technological advance in warfare, tanks, aircraft, missiles and even nuclear weapons, was initially believed to make war unviable. Instead, each has been used, often with devastating results. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, with a yield of just 15 kilotons, was considered a doomsday weapon. Today, nuclear arsenals possess warheads several times more destructive. Yet this exponential increase in lethality has not prevented states from flirting with the possibility of war.
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed rivals locked in what increasingly appears to be a civilizational clash, are actively probing the space for limited conventional conflict below the nuclear threshold. This belief that war can remain controlled and calibrated is a dangerous delusion. Once the first shot is fired, no one can guarantee where the escalatory ladder ends. Deterrence may work in theory, but in practice, it is vulnerable to human error, political miscalculation and the deadly momentum of nationalism.
The recent Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which innocent civilians lost their lives, is a frightening example of this fragility. India swiftly accused Pakistan, while voices from across the border implied the possibility of a false flag, suggesting the attack may have been staged to justify punitive action against a politically and economically fragile Pakistan. Yet an equally disturbing scenario cannot be ruled out: The violence was orchestrated by a militant group beyond the control of either state, intent on destabilizing the region. What makes this moment especially perilous is the hardened political stance adopted by the Indian leadership. Having staked its authority on uncompromising retaliation, even a single incident now demands a military response – regardless of evidence, proportionality or consequence.
In the wake of the Pahalgam attack, the international community has voiced urgent appeals for restraint. The U.N. urged both India and Pakistan to exercise maximum restraint and resolve issues peacefully through meaningful mutual engagement. China called for both nations to "exercise restraint, and jointly maintain regional peace and stability." President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emphasized the need for de-escalation and restored peace in the region. The U.S. expressed concern, encouraging all parties to work toward a "responsible resolution.” Despite these international calls for calm, the risk of miscalculation remains high, with the potential for a limited military operation to escalate into a broader conflict.
In the aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack, such as the recent Pahalgam massacre, India appears poised for military retaliation, driven by public outrage and its long-prepared Cold Start Doctrine. This doctrine is designed for swift, limited conventional strikes across the Line of Control, intended to punish without triggering full-scale war. With a clear advantage in conventional forces – nearly twice the size of Pakistan’s military in troops, tanks and air power – India could rapidly push 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) into Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Pakistan, lacking strategic depth and unable to withstand such a conventional assault, has anchored its national defense in its first-use nuclear doctrine. Central to this posture are tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), intended to blunt Indian advances on Pakistani soil. In such a fast-moving battlefield, decisions may be driven more by panic than deliberation, making the actual use of TNWs a highly probable outcome.
Once a single nuclear weapon is used, escalation is all but inevitable. Indian retaliation would not remain limited; the exchange could rapidly spiral from counterforce to countervalue targeting. What begins as a tactical exchange would likely become a full-scale nuclear war. This is not speculation; it is a foreseeable trajectory. The entire subcontinent, home to 2 billion people, stands on the edge of devastation, where a single trigger may reduce South Asia to radioactive ruins and unleash global environmental collapse.
In a second and equally ominous scenario, India initiates a limited strike under its Cold Start Doctrine, advancing 10-15 kilometers into Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This move is calibrated not merely for territorial gains but as a strategic provocation, akin to a seasoned tennis player forcing the opponent into a fatal unforced error. Cornered and outmatched in conventional terms, Pakistan resorts to its tactical nuclear weapons. But India, rather than retaliating in kind, absorbs the devastating blow, demonstrating calculated restraint. This unexpected posture allows India to seize the moral high ground, portraying itself as a responsible nuclear power while casting Pakistan as reckless and unfit for nuclear stewardship.
With its rising global profile and diplomatic capital, India galvanizes international opinion, leading to a chorus of condemnation against Pakistan. Under the threat of severe international sanctions and already grappling with political instability and economic fragility, Pakistan is pressured to freeze its missile program and ultimately curtail its nuclear arsenal. In effect, India achieves through provocation what would be impossible through war: the defanging of Pakistan’s nuclear capability. The strategic imbalance that follows could render Pakistan militarily impotent and politically vulnerable, potentially pushing it toward internal collapse or disintegration as a viable state.
Plunging the country into chaos and potentially triggering civil war. The disintegration of Pakistan would not only destabilize the region but also create a power vacuum that could fuel broader conflict. While Pakistan remains an adversary of India, a stable Pakistan acts as a buffer between the forces of counter-Islamic civilization and Hindu civilization. If Pakistan’s state apparatus dissolves, traditional Islamic forces and non-state actors might escalate conflict with India, leading to an uncontrollable war.
